Welcome to
the latest edition of Genius News, a monthly newsletter based on
the world's liveliest email forum: Genius-L. Genius-L
is a discussion list dedicated to the nature of genius, wisdom
and Ultimate Reality, to the total annihilation of false values
and the femininity in all of us. That is to say, it
is a list intended solely for men
- of either sex.

"Man
is a rope, fastened between animal and superman - a rope
over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a
bridge and not a goal; what can be loved in man is that
he is a going-across
and a down-going.

I love the
great scorners, for they are the great reverers and
arrows of longing for the other bank.

I love him who
lives for knowledge and wants knowledge that one day the
superman may live. And thus he wills his own
downfall.

I love him who
keeps back no drop of spirit for himself, but wants to be
the spirit of his virtue entirely: thus he steps as
spirit over the bridge.

I love him who
makes a predeliction and a fate of his virtue: thus for
his virtue's sake he will live or not live.

I love him
whose soul is lavish, who neither wants nor returns
thanks: for he always gives and will not preserve himself.

I love him who
throws golden words in advance of his deeds and always
performs more than he promised: for he wills his own
downfall.

I love him
whose soul is deep even in his ability to be wounded, and
whom even a little thing can destroy: thus he is glad to
go over the bridge.

I love him
whose soul is over-full, so that he forgets himself and
all things are in him: thus all things become his
downfall.

I love all those who
are like heavy drops falling singly from the dark cloud that
hangs over mankind: they prophesy the coming of the lightning and
as prophets they perish." Friedrich
Nietzsche

Shardrol: I was doing a Google search for 'shardrol' just to see
if I was still the only Shardrol on the www & I came across a
quote from myself in Genius News. I remember telling Dan &
David it was okay to use anything they wanted of what I wrote so
this wasn't so surprising, but what did surprise me was that
Genius News described itself as 'not for women'.

Well all right, but if it's 'not for women' why would they use
quotes from women? I wasn't the only woman quoted & I
don't think the quotes were meant to exhibit what dingalings we
were. So if women can write things worth quoting, why is
Genius News not for women? If they'd said "not for flowies"
I would have understood. But if the editors of Genius News
want to enlighten the whole world, why discourage women from
reading it?

I don't want to be considered an honorary man. If people find me
untypical of women I want them to expand their concept of what
women can be, not kick me out of the category so that they can
retain their narrow view.

David Quinn: To me, it's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons.
Dan and I agree that it is more fruitful to openly push the
"masculinity is superior" line than it is to remain
silent about the issue and thereby give tacit approval to the
popular idea that masculinity and femininity are equal when it
comes to wisdom and spirituality. Even though this may
offend and hurt some women, the benefits are too large to ignore.

Of course, by "women" we mean the feminine-minded. I
personally don't care whether a person is biologically male or
female. The psychology of an individual is what counts. The
masculine-minded person has a potential for great wisdom that the
feminine-minded person entirely lacks and that is what matters to
me.

So why use the term "women" and not "feminine-minded"?
Partly for impact value, and partly because it reflects the truth
that nearly all women are feminine-minded. It is also very
effective in repelling the feminine-minded from our cause and
makes it harder for them to sympathize with our ideas, which is
also very important.

Irena: That's a pretty honest answer. For impact, and to
exclude. My, my, I think you would make a good salesman or
advertising executive. You know your market and how to target it.
Well, I think you are taking the low road. I think you are
missing a chance to do something big and unusual. Instead of
persuing the same essentially misogynistic ( disguise it however
you like) route, you could have done the high thing. You could
have seen how important masculine and feminine are in combination.

David Quinn: The only trouble is, I don't agree with that particular
sentiment. It is your point of view, not mine. If I
actually thought that the feminine was important to spiritual
growth, then yes, I would proclaim it as openly as I do my other
views. But it isn't what I think, so I don't.

David
Quinn: Dan and I agree that it is
more fruitful to openly push the "masculinity is superior"
line than it is to remain silent about the issue and thereby give
tacit approval to the popular idea that masculinity and
femininity are equal when it comes to wisdom and spirituality.
Even though this may offend and hurt some women, the benefits are
too large to ignore.

Dan Rowden: It's simply the truth and I certainly don't care if the
truth offends or hurts someone; that's their problem. I'm not
about to dilute or distort my views out of deference to the
egotistical sensibilities of others. Shardrol suggests that
we should expand our ideas of what a woman can be, but this is
unnecessary because our idea of what a woman can be already
includes that of her being more masculine.

But I guess a case could be made that "feminine minded"
is a better phrase than "women". One is more likely to
think of - and therefore include - feminine minded men when
confronted with the former term. Of course, in Australian
culture it is not at all unusual for a man who is considered to
be feminine minded to be referred to as a "woman". So,
for Aussies this "problem " might not be so great.
I think the fact that we've used three different phrases, to
convey the same essential idea, means that we've pretty much
covered all the bases.

Al Young: Given your purpose, it certainly does seem that "not
for women" is unnecessarily off-putting.

Dan Rowden: I'm not so sure that, in relation to "our purpose",
there's any such thing as that which is "unnecessarily off-putting".
If a person is put-off by something I say I am quite happy to see
the back of them.

Dan Rowden: I can understand why you would think that, but both
phrases are intended to convey the same meaning, and I don't
think "not for women" would actually be off-putting to
the sort of woman who would be likely to appreciate the list or
the newsletter - a fact to which the presence of Marsha,
Shardrol, Irena and Jane (and however many long-term female
lurkers we may have) testifies - so I'm not particularly
concerned by that. As far as I'm concerned, Genius-L is most
definitely not for women, as is, say, no-holds-barred cage
wrestling, but it doesn't exclude those women who may in fact be
into that sort of thing.

Al Young: Do you agree with Dave that it's worthwhile and
necessary to repel the feminine minded with a statement that's
apparently calculated to offend (the purportedly feminine minded)?

Dan Rowden: I don't see it as calculated that way, and I don't
think the feminine minded will necessarily be repelled by it. How
many feminine minded women (and men) have you seen come to the
list and disappear in pretty quick time? This is so because
it is not a list for women. I don't agree that it is calculated
to repel or offend anyone. It may have that effect, but for
my part, it is not an effect that I explicitly intend. They
are phrases meant to emphasize two things: 1) the masculine
nature of the list; 2) the importance David and I place on the
whole issue of psychology and feminine/masculine with relation to
the philosophic path and the fact that feminine-mindedness has no
place in it. To me, it is an issue as significant as any
metaphysical concern, because it is not, in fact, distinct from
those metaphysical concerns. It is all about the question
of what sort of mind it takes to comprehend something like one's
own nature or the Infinite.

Al Young: Why not dispense with the covert calculation and just
honestly state the purpose?

Dan Rowden: Well, I think it expresses what I consider to be a bald
fact - the list is not for women. I don't really relate to
the phrases in the way you suggest, though I acknowledge that,
for some, this repulsion may be a consequence of them. If
some person is, in fact, repelled by them, I could frankly give a
damn. David and I are trying to attract a certain kind of
mind - one for whom the idea of masculinity of mind and character
resonates. One could say: why not just use a phrase like "for
the masculine"? But in terms of impact, negative
phrases often have more of it than positive ones. They're also
more provocative, and I'm not the least bit shy about stirring
things up a bit. I don't see anything covert in it; what are we
supposed to do, add a statement saying we are trying to be
deliberately provocative?

Any tool you use to attract a certain type of creature may well
have the effect of repelling another type, but it doesn't mean
you're using the tool specifically to repel that other type.
Because I've never specifically had that repulsive effect in
mind, I've never given any thought to whether such a consequence
is good or bad. Having done so I can say that I think it is
entirely good. Feminine minded people are a pain in the
arse. They are annoying gnats who get in the way of
everything.

There's also the not altogether insignificant point that if you
speak of women or the feminine minded in any way critically or in
a way that marginalises them in some fashion, you will
immediately repel most people because most people have an
enormous emotional attachment to "woman" and all that
it entails. It's like us (David and myself) saying, as
atheists, that the list is not for religionists. It's an
essentially accurate claim, but one that will immediately repel
many with religious sensibilities.

They're also phrases which help to indentify the degree of
distance between us and conventional, herdly thinking and
attitudes.

EDITORIAL

- HER ALIEN NATURE -

by David Quinn

The mind of a woman behaves in a
way that is very difficult for a man to comprehend. She
appears to have a human form, yet her mind rarely seems to
operate along the same lines that his does. A part of him wants
to believe that men and women are mentally alike, but experience
consistently teaches him the folly of this view. She
sometimes appears god-like; at other times cat-like; yet other
times alien-like, or child-like, or just plain insane. Very
rarely does she appear human-like.

No matter how knowledgeable a man becomes in the study of female
psychology, a woman always seems to have the knack of being able
to confound all his expectations. No one knows how a woman
will behave in a given circumstance, least of all her. Her
behaviour is only loosely controlled by conscious thought and
logically-reasoned analysis, and is a lot more random and
unpredictable as a result. Hormones and emotions also play a
large part, which only adds to her unpredictability.

Whenever a man looks into a woman's mind he is struck by how alien
her thought-processes are compared to his own. I refer not
just to her interests, beliefs and values, but to the very way
her mind is structured and the way it functions. The
difference is so extensive that one could be forgiven for
thinking that men and women belong to two entirely different
species. If it wasn't for the fact that they breed together, it
would be an entirely reasonable classification to make.

There is a saying that if you want to change a woman's mind, all
you have to do is wait five minutes and she'll change it for you.
Never has a truer word been spoken. Women are notorious for their
fickleness and changeability. They do not have a reputation
for displaying consistency of thought, or having a strong
attachment to timeless principles. They have never been
noted for the weightiness of their reflections, or for having an
unrelenting passion for enlightenment.

Like a ball of wax, woman lacks an inner centre and is almost
entirely formless. Masculine people generate their own thoughts,
beliefs and values from within themselves, but feminine people
have these things impressed upon them from the external
environment. She is like a mirror that always reflects what is
placed before it. She is directionless and passive, always
bending where the wind blows.

It would never occur to a woman to assume responsibilities above
and beyond what other people around them assume, and so it would
never occur to a woman to make a bid for consciousness and
individuality. Most women just go with the flow, happily
doing whatever their society tells them to do, breeding children,
gossiping with their friends and leading mediocre lives. They can
barely be distinguished from their surroundings. If it
wasn't for their physical beauty and their vaginas, no one would
even know they were there.

A woman never consciously reasons out a matter to the very end,
never attempts to ground her thoughts in absolute truth, never
embarks in a particular philosophical/spiritual direction.
She remains the same throughout her life - constantly changing in
a directionless manner, aimlessly flowing into other people's
grooves. A fifty year old woman is almost identical to an
eighteen year old girl; she might be a little more worldly wise,
but other than that there is little to distinguish between them.

Her thinking is always conventional, her values are those of the
herd. She has no passion for pure knowledge, no hunger to
understand what is ultimately true, and her philosophical
thoughts rarely go beyond being half-formed, unfocused and
unclear. Society adequately caters to her physical and emotional
needs without her having to mentally develop in any significant
way and she therefore tends not to notice the large deficiencies
in her mental life. Yet the more aware and truthful one becomes,
the more glaring these deficencies in women seem to be. In
truth, women are virtually unconscious.

Relationships, Intimacy and Ego

David Hodges: I've felt so much better in the last few days
that I've noticed something about the girlfriend: all she
does is complain and whine and worry.

Dan Rowden: I suspect you didn't notice this all that much
previously because it was a disposition that you were in
fact relating to. But it's actually something that comes
naturally to most women; it's how they get things done.
They whine and moan and complain so much that men (or
even other women) feel duty bound to relieve them of
their angst and woes. It's the ol' passive aggressive
approach to life.

David
Hodges: This is pretty
much the conclusion I came to, myself.

I've also come to the conclusion that there's
nothing I can do about it - about her nature, I mean. In any
situation, you could find something to worry about and complain
about, if you tried hard enough. Anyway, I've got enough to
do, taking care of myself right now, that I can't be responsible
for her well-being, too.

Dan Rowden: In what sense have you ever been responsible for her
well-being? Isn't that her problem?

David Hodges: Yes, it is her problem, I suppose, or it should be. But
when you are intimately involved with someone, you take on some
control over each other's well-being. A sharp word from a lover
can have a lot of impact where it would mean nothing from a
stranger.

Dan Rowden: Yes, but only because you have a greater egotistical
investment in the lover.

David Hodges: Quite right. That is part of intimacy; you have an
investment in each other, a commitment toward each other.

Dan Rowden: I think the real commitment one makes is to one's own
ego. It's is exceedingly rare that one will remain
committed to another if that commitment means forsaking one's own
happiness and security. We do not continue to love that
which brings us only pain, therefore the commitment isn't really
to that other.

David Hodges: She demands to be treated in a certain way, and right
now it's a drain on me to deal with it. She has her own issues to
deal with - insecurity - like most people do. It's easy for me to
upset her without meaning to - just out of thoughtlessness,
forgetting something she said, a casual stupid comment that she
takes out of proportion. She isespecially insecure at the moment,
because she is moving out, getting her own apartment, this
weekend. I t's all very amicable - we aren't breaking up - but
she is obviously afraid that I won't be seeing her as much, and
so is being very lovey-dovey.

Dan Rowden: Pure manipulation. I mean, it's perfectly
understandable - she's protecting her interests, but who wants to
live their lives as an object of such need? It's like being
a piece of property, a commodity. What value do you have other
than the value she sees for herself? This is one of the
painful things we have to face with respect to ego-based
relationships with others - that each person is really only
interested in the other for the sake of the benefits derived from
them. There's something distasteful about that. One of the
distasteful things being that that need means that we invariably
apply pressure on that other person to be a certain thing, to
remain a certain way, or even to change into a certain thing.
Who and what they really are or might like to be never enters the
picture. What woman wishes her beau to become a perfectly
enlightened Buddha?

David Hodges: What other people think of her is emotionally very
important to her - as it is for most people. That puts
responsibility for her emotional state on me.

Dan Rowden: When we care about how we appear to others, we give
ourselves over to them, in subtle and not so subtle ways. We do,
in fact, become an extension of their egos and their
self. We cease to have an independent identity; we cease to
be. Of course, if we enter these dynamics we're doing that
to others as well. I mean, damn, are there any real, whole,
complete individuals in the world? We're more like the Borg
than we imagine - except that there's no big bad leader-Borg.

David Hodges: She needs reassurance.

Dan Rowden: The reassurance she should be getting is that she is
capable of greater emotional independence. Any other kind
just makes her more dependent, and by extension, more demanding.
How much reassurance does a woman need? - that's like asking: how
many moments does a woman experience?

David Hodges: Having a relationship does have rewards - if they are
worth the effort and stress or not is something each has to
decide for himself.

Dan Rowden: But any stress that's there only arises from our
egotistical attachments and desires, and our demands that this
other person be a certain way. The whole dynamic is a bit
"off", don't you think? I reckon the egotistical
benefits we do derive from such relationships blinds us to the
deeper reality of it.

David Hodges: At its best, a relationship is like a deep friendship,
where you can talk about things, do things together, share
experiences, pool resources, help each other to grow in some ways.

Dan Rowden:
I would make a distinction between a "spiritual"
friendship and an ego-based one. A spiritual friend is one
who is prepared to make you suffer and who will not pander to
your ego; one who will be an enemy to your ego. If a person is
seriously interested in authentic progress, these are the best
kinds of friends.

David Hodges: Maybe we should be more independant, like some heros in
an Ayn Rand novel, but that's how it is in the real world... a
relationship does mean some emotional interdependance.

Dan Rowden: It's not just about independence, it's also about
ethical soundness. What right do any of us have to demand that
other people treat us in a certain way? That they should
modify their ideas and language just to appease our egotistical
sensibilities. It's really quite pathetic when you think about it.
We do not allow that other to be who they are. It is a form of
violence. Basically, you both agree to behave badly. That's the
essence of any ego-based relationship.

David Hodges: I understand what you are saying - but I would also
point out that this is essentially the basis of civilization, the
'social contract' as it were. You agree to modify certain
behaviors, go along with certain rules, and you get certain
rewards.

Dan Rowden: I think people are in a constant state of "war"
with each other, forever tussling with all the cunning that an
adult human being can muster, to gain those rewards for
themselves; always jostling for position

David Hodges: Is anything we do that might change another person,
violence?

Dan Rowden: Yes, I think you could say that it is, but I don't
think all violence is bad.

David Hodges: Should we allow people to be anything they happen to
be, saying nothing, when they could be better?

Dan Rowden: No, certainly not. The problem is that most people
don't even know what they are. The goal is to make them
conscious, then they can work it all out for themselves.
It's kind of like tossing a glass of water in the face of someone
who is hysterical. It's violence of a sort, but once enacted,
that person then has an chance and the capacity to work out what
to do from there. If your goals and values involve human
consciousness in any way, it's impossible not to indulge in some
type of manipulation, coercion etc. The only reason I decry the
forms of behaviour that I do, is because the egotism and lack of
consciousness underpinning them is bad news for the goal of
wisdom.

David Hodges: A relationship, by its nature, is not dictated by one
or the other party to it. It's mutual. If it is violence, it is
consensual violence. How can there be an ethical issue?

Dan Rowden: The issue is in the egotism and ignorance underpinning
the behaviour. If one doesn't care about such things there's
really no issue at all. Every judgment I make about these matters
revolves around the goal of the attainment and spread of wisdom
and the relationship between that and certain forms of behaviour
and psychology; change the goals and you change the judgements.

[quoting some author] - "Women for the
most part do not love us. They do not choose a man because
they love him, but because it pleases them to be loved by him."

David Hodges: What can I say, other than I fear this is true. It's
satisfying to the ego to have someone else care about you.

Dan Rowden: Very much so. That's a big part of what
relationships are about. Women are in love with love.
The man, in terms of his individual character, which a woman may
never even really come to know, because she always sees him
through the filters of her own desires, is somewhat incidental.
This is one of the reasons women are happy to be involved with
criminals and sundry shitheads. They are being loved and that's
what matters. It can be quite horrifying for a man to see the
type of guy his ex-girlfriend has taken up with after they've
split.

Celibacy and the Perfect Buddha

Dan Rowden: Celibacy, as commonly defined and
understood, is always one of two things, a choice made by an
individual as a means to facilitate some goal or express some
value or moral precept, or, a natural consequence of a particular
mind state. James seems to include under the umbrella of
celibacy any individual who, for whatever reason, cannot get sex
over a period (no menses pun intended), but who would have sex if
they could. I don't consider such a person to be celibate
at all - they are simply victims of circumstance, but I guess if
one wanted to give the term celibacy such a definition that's up
to them. On an individual, philosophic level, I don't
find it especially helpful.

James: I acknowledge that this may seem
strange, but it is possible that I, or "I" in this
particular case, may be sabotaging those chances I do have "unconsciously",
as a victim to my own inner unknown tyrant. Much of the way I
interact and understand the world is on an intuitive level, I
will sometimes go years with a philosophy or active morality
without being able to justify it verbally or reasonably, until
one day suddenly I can. Our brains process data indifferent ways,
and as evinced by hypnotism, the unconscious has access to "more"
data than the awake part of our minds, remembering details we
cannot consciously recall, finding subtlety where our ego selves
see only the surface. Thus, it may be that this celibacy I
currently see as circumstantial may be on some level willed, I
cannot myself be sure. I can only hope to know one day one way or
the other, in any case; I cannot be other than I am.

Dan Rowden: Yes, I can relate to this rather well,
as I spent most of my adult life expressing a celibacy that was
very much like what you're describing. I intuitively knew that
something was wrong with the whole dynamic of the interplay
between the sexes and what I perceived was necessary for me to do
to have any "success" with women. So, even though the
sexual desires burned, I resisted acting on them. It could be, of
course, that I was simply extremely fearful of rejection, and I
would think that was definitely part of it, but on an intuitive
level, I had real problems with playing the game. During that
period, I could not have coherently articulated the reasons I
had; they were more emotional and intuitive feelings than a
rationally work-out moral philosophy.

I've related this story before but I'll tell it again because
it's relevant to this issue: when I was in highschool, around 14
years of age, I witnessed one of my friends interacting with his
then girlfriend; it was winter and he was wearing a sweater. He
was leaning against a wall and she was standing in front of him;
as they chatted she reached over and began to pick fluff from his
sweater. A perfectly innocent bit of behaviour, right? You'd
think so, but it absolutely horrified me. There was something
about what she was doing that troubled me deeply and it affected
my attitude to male/female relationships for a long time to come.
What was it that I sensed that disturbed me so? I had literally
had no idea, not then, at least. I shared these feelings with a
girl I knew and she thought I was insane.

Now, of course, I know that what I was perceiving intuitively was
the ego at work, and the dynamic of a female taking control over
what a man is - wanting to change and mould him according to her
own desires. However, without ever really known why, precisely,
through the years I just wouldn't take the steps necessary to
"chase" a woman because on that intuitive, emotional
level, I knew I'd be in for big trouble if I did. Of course, it
wasn't till I actually did gain an understanding of these
dynamics that I could be sure that all that time I wasn't simply
being a pathetic wimp who was so reliant on the approval of
"woman" that I couldn't bring myself to be put in a
situation of rejection by her. Mind you, it would be less than
honest to suggest that there wasn't also some of that fear in
there as well.

It is true that celibacy is something statistically aberrant to
our natures, but then, aberrance is part of our natures - that's
what having the ability to make self-aware, conscious decisions
and choices is all about. We have the power to decline to
act on certain drives for the purpose of expressing values and
goals. But there's one important thing that must be
remembered, and that is that a drive or desire is being expressed
even if it is not physically enacted. It is absurd, for
example, to believe that a person is not violent on account of
their never having physically assaulted anyone, or perhaps, more
accurately, it is absurd to think of yourself as a non-violent
person for that reason. If the desire for sex and all the
psychological baggage that goes with it, exists, then one is
absolutely not celibate. I don't care if you go your entire
life never getting any, that does not make you celibate.
Mind makes one celibate, not circumstance. Therefore, I
would assert that the only people who can ever be celibate are
the perfectly enlightened - those for whom no part of their
deluded, desirous ego remains. Has anyone in the history of
Man been celibate? Possibly, but more than likely, not.

A sexual thought or inclination makes you a sexual being, simple
as that. The question is how such thoughts and inclinations
arise; that is, what is their nature? An egotistical being
expresses that ego in everything it thinks and does; desire, of
any kind whatsoever, arises out of the need for the ego to
express itself. When we're talking about "ego",
we're talking about the concept of an inherently, independently
existent self. When the false nature of such a self is
understood and that understanding begins to seep into every
aspect of an individual's consciousness, ego begins to dissipate
and so too the desires that spring from it. As the
individual begins to see more clearly, for example, the egotism
in the normal dynamic of the sexual interplay between the
genders, his involvement in that interplay, both physically
and mentally, disappears in proportion to the degree his ego has
disappeared. Such a one does not exactly "choose"
celibacy, either on moral or aesthetic or ascetic grounds - it
occurs as a natural consequence of the diminution of the
psychological forces that cause such desires in the first place.
The egotistical fuel that kept the fires burning is cut off and
the fire begins to die for lack of fuel.

The choice one makes to not enact sexual
desires, referred to as celibacy by some, is a perfectly
reasonable choice to make, especially for the serious
thinker, at least where he does so on the grounds that
entering into the emotional and egotistical complexity of
sexual interplay is something that necessarily undermines
focused thought. The idea that you can think
clearly and analytically whilst caught up in sexual
gamesmanship, and the various emotional nuances of that,
is pure balderdash, as is the whole idea of non-attached,
purely sensual, recreational sex. One would have to
enter into such a dynamic with an especially cold and
calculating approach, but if one is doing that, then one
is not really entering the reality of the dynamic between
the sexes at all. Such a person is doing no more
than experiencing their own contrivance.

James: I think I could safely say that I am
not engaged in sexual gamesmanship; admittedly, when confronted
by what appears to be an opportunity I might exert myself in that
direction, but if I do not seek out those situations what
gamesmanship is there?

Dan Rowden: In this case the gamesmanship would all
be internal, but it's still there, it just takes on a slightly
different form than if you're engaging the female directly. In
other words, you will be playing out all sorts of scenarios in
your head - good ones, bad ones, one that you may not actually
want to talk about. This still amounts to entering into the ego
dynamic of sexual interplay. And whilst it may appear that you're
not involving a particular woman in that dynamic, if she senses
that your behaviour has anything to do with her at all (women
have exceedingly powerful radar in these matters), then you are
in fact involving her. Can that be helped? Probably not. Just
being indifferent to a woman has an impact on her ego so there's
really not much you can do about that. You have to concentrate of
what is beneficial for you.

James: While I am the first to admit that the
majority of sexual relationships in our culture are, for a man, a
pit of despair and lead away from wisdom, I am not so arrogant to
assume that an impediment on the road is a negation of the
journey.

Dan Rowden: I don't really see your point. Anything
that takes one away from wisdom is bad. It doesn't mean that
involvement with "woman", which is what we're really
talking here, much more than the issue of just getting laid, will
remove one permanently from the path, but it is definitely a
tremendous risk. To enter into a relationship with "woman"
which is in any way emotionally fulfilling, one has to, quite
literally, abandon consciousness - there's no two ways about that.
Having done so, there is no guarantee whatever that you'll ever
get it back again. Having said that, if one enters such a
relationship in a genuinely idealistic fashion, the
disappointment that will inevitably follow, may lead to a higher
level of idealism. It may be that for some, a failed relationship
with that most powerful of gods - woman - may be what leads that
person into a purer relationship to truth. It all depends on the
psychological nature he brings to that relationship from the
outset.

To some extent, however, it's possible to go through such a
relationship without ever having actually entered into a normal
relationship with an actual, living, breathing women. That's
because most of our relationship with "woman" is in our
own heads anyway. Getting close to a real woman can be a means to
facilitate that realisation, because one is struck by the sheer
chasm between what a woman is "supposed" to be and what
she actually is.

I guess the thrust of my point is that such an involvement may be
useful so long as the man never loses himself to it completely,
because if he does, he is most assuredly lost to the path. I
can't advocate it unless the desires are too powerful to resist.
It's a bit like any kind of drug experimentation; it may prove
useful to one who enters into the whole thing with a strong mind
and resolve, but it could prove devastating to one who does not.

Of course, denying something to oneself without good reason is
definitely a perversion.

James: What if you suspect there is a good
reason but are unable to, as yet, articulate it?

Dan Rowden: Then I would follow my gut instincts,
all the while doing my best to establish a conscious
understanding of it.

James: Way ahead of you, my man.

"The
ordinary man would rather read the life of the cruelist pirate
that ever lived than the wisest philosopher."

Lolita

Shardrol: On the subject of pedophilia, I
was wondering if any of you have read the novel 'Lolita'
by Vladimir Nabokov. This is the story of a middle-aged
man, narrated in the first person, & his sexual
obsession with a pubescent girl. One of the things that
makes it interesting is that even though we are seeing
everything through the narrator's eyes, it's still
possible to observe how he is distorting his
interpretations of the girl's behavior to make it seem as
though she is attracted to him in the same way that he's
attracted to her.

Although the narrator also has some moments of brutal
honesty when he starkly describes the damage he did, many
if not most people who read the book completely
misinterpret it. The word 'Lolita' (his pet name for the
child) has even come to mean a seductive young girl.

The tragedy of
this story is the fact of the different contexts of children
& adults. What the child intends as playful, attention-getting,
affectionate behavior, the adult interprets as a sexual come-on
in adult terms. The excuse-the-expression literary genius of
Nabokov manages to convey all this without ever explicitly
stating any of it, telling the whole story in the voice of the
pedophile himself. We experience him as both monstrous &
tragic. But the book was very controversial when it was first
published because a bunch of idiots saw it as a pornographic
narrative of adult-child sex.

Irena: Part of the tragedy is that Lolita is
presented as being to some degree complict in the relationship,
she is not presented as a complete innocent, and this makes the
story all the more 'true' and compelling.

Shardrol: She is complicit at the level of a
child. She has no understanding of the force of adult sexual
obsession that drives Humbert. She reacts to the whole situation
as a child, bartering sex for comic books, trying to make the
best of her life of being entirely under his control. It's not a
question of innocence. It's the collision of two worlds. The most
poignant part of the book is when Humbert writes about Lolita
playing tennis, how the form of her playing was perfect but she
lacked the essential confidence & drive that would make her
win. She was somehow eternally cowed, & he understands that
he did that to her.

Irena: I think it is important to remember
the whole construct comes as a fantasy out of the mind of a
middle-aged man, a great writer. The story is not about Lolita,
it is about Hubert Humbert. The man's desire, his fall, his
angst, etc, etc. Another take on the story is Candy. Male
fantasies.

Shardrol: That is the interpretation that most
people put on it but it's dead wrong. What takes it out of that
realm is that even through Humbert's narration we can see the
child behind the 'nymphet', an actual person who suffers but
adapts to her monstrous life. Because she's not in a position to
reject Humbert's desires, she cooperates & the relationship
continues. We see her become crass & calculating; she learns
to manipulate Humbert.

Irena: I wonder if this is not a somewhat
revisionist interpretation. Is it not possible, that beyond the
character of child, she is also a character of somewhat
manipulative proportions, a baby monster?

Shardrol: She turns into a monster, yes, but I
don't think she starts out that way. Just as an ordinary 12-year-old,
sometimes seemingly adult, sometimes bratty, etc. Yes my
interpretation could be called 'revisionist' but just in terms of
the book having been misunderstood by a lot of the people who
read it & probably all of the people who didn't read it but
have opinions about it nevertheless. I don't think it's
revisionist in terms of the author's intention.

Narrated from the point of view of Humbert, as it was, it was a
love story. A deranged love story, but still as close as he could
come.

Irena: I think sometimes it is a mistake to
interprete a creative work as a moral lesson, though naturally we
will find one in most great works.

Shardrol: I'm not the sort to go looking for
moral lessons. To me it was a story about humans & how they
behave. Very true to life, artistic yet not contrived, which is
why I liked it.

The Way

The
following dialogues focus on the issue of the Way - i.e. the
nature of the spiritual path. If Reality forms the totality
of all there is, then how can there be a path to realizing
it? Wouldn't we be conscious of it already? Isn't the very
search for it a delusion?

The main proponents in this discussion are David Quinn and Jeff
Jackson. Both David and Jeff agree that Reality forms the
totality of all there is, but disagree on what constitutes the
path to enlightenment (consciousness of the nature of Reality).
David maintains that we have to follow a specific path of
abandoning delusions and false habits of thought before we can
become truly conscious of what is before our eyes, whereas Jeff
asserts that there is nothing to be done as we are already
conscious of it. The clash of these two fundamentally
different points of view comprise the bulk of the discussion.

Jason: I keep coming back to the fact that the
truth is right in front of your eyes and can never not be.
Most people search for a finite Truth, such as a set of beliefs.
But if you want to have a perfect view of reality, you don't map
it. Reality is everything, and trying to reduce it to something
less than everything, is always going to lead to errors.
Which leads me to the idea that there is nothing to really do at
all accept realise that Reality is. That's it.

David Quinn: This is true as far as it goes, but is
by no means the whole story. As an analogy, consider the
dreams we have at night. When a person dreams at night, we can
say that the dream he experiences is. Moreover, this is
something which holds true regardless of whether the person is
having a lucid dream or not. In both cases, dream is.
And yet at the same time, there is a vast difference between the
two in terms of understanding and quality of consciousness.

Similarly, there is a world of difference between a fully-enlightened
Buddha and an ordinary person - even though, for both of them,
Reality is.

Jason: But if you define Reality as "All
That Is" then it is impossible to not be conscious of it
every moment of the day.

David Quinn: The bare fact that Reality is "All
That Is" isn't enough to ensure that everyone is conscious
of its true nature. Animals, for example, are experiencing
Reality all of the time, and yet they clearly lack the
consciousness to realize its nature and appreciate its
significance. The same goes for most humans.

In Buddhism, there is the parable of the six blind Indians
touching an elephant. One touches a leg and believes it to
be a tree trunk. Another touches the tail and believes it to be a
rope - and so on. Only the sighted person is able to take in the
bigger picture and realize that it is actually an elephant.
Similarly, only the enlightened person is able to recognize the
true nature of Reality, even though everyone does experience
Reality in their own fashion.

Jason: Reality is everything, and trying to
reduce it to something less than everything, is always going to
lead to errors. Which leads me to the idea that there is nothing
to really do at all accept realise that Reality is.
That's it.

David Quinn: The only way a person can know how to
cease reducing Reality is by fully understanding its nature.
Once he attains this understanding, he can then learn how to
cease grasping at Reality with his ego.

Jeff Jackson: Bullshit. The only way DQ will ever
admit that anyone but DQ has any insight is when he attains full
understanding of reality. Then he can work on ceasing to grasp IT
as his ego.

Some are born with it. Some realize it relatively soon.
Some go to their grave. Some are stubborn. Some are
obnoxious. Some are possesive. Some are jealous. Some
are space aliens like DQ, beaming thoughts into your heads
through the oh-so-innocent appearing internet. Wisdom is
not a greased pig, and we are not in a contest to catch it.

Bob Willis: Aren't you doing the same thing you
accuse David of? You're implicitly saying that you have a
full understanding of Reality, that David doesn't, that it is
possible to realize it "relatively soon", and further,
that with a full understanding of Reality one will cease grasping
for it. What's the deal here, Jeff?

Jeff Jackson: The deal is that I'm not hawking some
"method" or "means" to an end that is already
present. The deal is that I will acknowledge expression of the
truth rather than pooh-poohing and yeah-buting. Jason was right
on and got word mincing for his effort.

The deal is that I AM the same thing as David, and IN the same
circumstances. What is the amazement that manifestation in
duality is manifestation in duality. The deal is that David sez
there's his way or the highway. I say there are as many ways as
there are people.

The deal is that people are better off concentrating on finding
their way rather than trying to incorporate the DQ way. The
deal is that truth has been perverted from time immemorial by the
self serving codifying their half truths, ala every major world
religion, including Rowsolquinnism.

The deal is that if you can't see the difference, it is because
you don't want to see a difference.

Jeff
Jackson: The deal
is that I'm not hawking some "method" or "means"
to an end that is already present.

David Quinn: Yes, you are. You are telling
people to stop searching for what is already present. That
is your teaching and your method.

Jeff Jackson: There is no method, nor means, to reach
the present. Means and method imply the future, not the
present. It's a done deal. Whether anyone stops searching,
picks their nose, picks another's nose, climbs a mountain, stays
celibate, or fucks like a bunny, is up to them. Whatever they do,
it is not specified by me.

David Quinn: Then why are you ticking me off for my
behaviour? Am I to be the exception on your list of what is
acceptable in life?

Jeff Jackson: This must be another example of
language gap. Allow me to clarify. All you people out
there, David Quinn has a way that may have correlations and use
in your own devlopment. David Quinn is not to be ignored
and has, a number of times, expressed lucid and tuthful
observations. However, be on your guard to separate the wheat
from the chaff.

David Quinn: If everything is a done deal and there
is nothing to do, what possible reason could a person have for
separating the wheat from the chaff? The chaff is as much a
part of present Reality as the wheat is. Reality is.
So why should the chaff be rejected?

Moreover, who are you to even comment upon what other people
should or shouldn't do? According to your own philosophy,
everyone is on their own path and no one path is superior to any
of the others. So what does it matter to you what other people
do?

Jeff Jackson: I do not deny you your path. I am
simply pointing out that your path will only work for you.
Some may find inspiration in what you say, yet others
condemnation. Often, the ones who are condemned are the ones more
advanced than you, other times, less.

David Quinn: How can anyone be more advanced than
others, if everything is a done deal and there is nothing to be
done?

What I find amusing is the way in which your philosophy puts you
in a double bind. You can't affirm and support what I do
because it is obvious that we are in profound disagreement with
regards to nearly everything under the sun. Yet at the same time,
you can't very well reject what I do because that would be to
reject a portion of Reality and to negate the idea that Reality is,
and that everyone is following their own path, etc, etc.
Quite the conundrum, you could say.

Jeff Jackson: I hereby affirm everything you do by
rejecting it. Stick to playing with your blocks, David.
Someday you may play with words, and then, maybe even sentences.

Jeff
Jackson: The deal
is that David sez there's his way or the highway. I say
there are as many ways as there are people.

David Quinn: No, you're saying that your way
is the only way.

Jeff Jackson: Indeed. I am the way. How astute.

David Quinn: You stated that Jason's comments were
correct (i.e. because they were in line with Your way),
and that my comments were bullshit (i.e. because they conflicted
with Your way). It's clear that you are a rigid-minded
bigot who wants everyone to follow Your way.

Jeff Jackson: I stated that Jason's comments were
correct because they were in line with The way, not my
way.

David Quinn: Oh, I see. You were talking about The
way, not your way. I'm sorry. I thought we were
talking about Your way, when in fact we were talking
about The way. How unforgivable of me!

Shardrol: Jeff, when you say 'there are as many
ways as there are people', that statement is an example of a
particular view, not a lack of one. For instance, it is
incompatible with the view that any one way is better than
another (assuming what you mean by 'way' is something like 'valid
spiritual path') or that following someone else's methodology can
work. It's like someone trying to express religious
tolerance by saying that all religions are the same, which is
actually quite intolerant of the religions that believe they are
the one true way.

Victor: I'm still unclear concerning what you,
and everyone else participating in the discussion, mean by a
"way". Does it imply a certain sequence of ideas
one must contemplate? Or perhaps a way of following certain
ethics and behavior?

David Quinn: "Way" can have several
meanings. There is the "way" of Nature, sometimes
referred to as the Tao or Dao. This refers to the fundamental
principle of existence by which all things are created. He who
follows the "Way" is fully cognizant of this principle
in all circumstances. Such a person is able to see directly into
the way in which all things exist.

The "way" can also refer to the path to enlightenment,
which is the path of reason and the abandonment of delusions.
This path is embarked upon the moment a person experiences a
sincere desire to comprehend Truth and applies his whole mind to
it. The "way" can also refer to the path to perfection,
which is a very rare and lofty path followed by enlightened
people after they attain enlightenment. This is the path to
complete Buddhahood in which every last attachment and false
habit of thought and behaviour is eliminated.

Jeff Jackson: The one way does not conform,
everything else conforms to it. The way is not derivative, it is
the source of derivations.

Space Aliens

The idea
of space aliens beaming delusional thoughts into our brain
without our knowing it is a variation of Descartes' idea about a
mischevious demon. Descartes imagined a demon whose sole
intent was to distort our minds in any way it could. He
wanted to know whether it was possible for him to know anything
with certainty, despite the possibility of his mind being
deceived by this demon.

Unfortunately, this conception was to be the high point of
Descartes' philosophical career. He subsequently formulated
the higly flawed dictum, "I
think, therefore I am",
and then went rapidy downhill after that. He was last seen
rolling about the floor in a fit and making bumbling apologetics
for the Christian religion. Still, the basic idea of a
mischevious demon was a good one, and in the following dialogues,
we examine the same issue of "certainty"
using an up-dated version.

David Quinn: In what way could the possibility of space aliens
directing thoughts into my brain undermine my current knowledge
of Reality?

Jason: Your mind could be being warped to believe it is
rational and logical when it really is not. I think I know
what your answer will be: a perfectly rational mind will know for
certain that it is being rational. But the problem is that a mind
that is warped will still believe it is perfectly rational.
In other words, to the mind of the philosopher their will be no
way to gauge if his thoughts are rational or the product of alien
interference. Their will be no noticeable difference to the
philosopher.

David Quinn: Let's consider a specific example, one that we all know
about - the knowledge that consciousness exists and experience is
happening. This is something that I can establish with absolute
certainty, regardless of what these hypothetical aliens are doing
to my brain. They can distort my mind all they want, but it still
won't change the fact that I know that consciousness
exists and experience is happening. There is nothing the aliens
can do about this, short of making me unconscious.

The knowledge that consciousness exists and experience is
happening is an example of what I call a "truth thought".
True thoughts are unmistakeable and immediate, and ultimately
cannot be challenged in any way.

Jason: I generally agree with this. But I can still imagine
that it is caused by warping of the mind. Just because we
can find no fault with our reasoning does that necessarily mean
that there is no fault? Experience shows me that I
can be wrong when I think I'm right. Many things seem
beyond doubt, but are they?

David Quinn: True, many beliefs are like this. They can seem
certain when in reality they are not. But it's a completely
different story when comes to those utterly irrefutable truths
like "experience is happening". You're making the
mistake of lumping a great truth such as this with all other
beliefs in the world and then using the uncertainty of these
other beliefs to cast false doubt on it.

Jason: I've been trying to critically examine the idea "experience
is happenning" and it makes my mind spin, I literally feel
disorientated. No wonder I'm not making sense. It's seems that
there is nothing to reason about. There is no reasoning
behind the idea, it's just a statement of "isness".

David Quinn: There is reasoning involved when one asks the question,
" Can I be absolutely certain that experience is happening?"
One reasons that it is impossible to be uncertain of it due to
the fact that the very question is itself an experience. In the
very act of asking, the question is automatically answered.

Jason: Even if I consider that "experience is happenning"
to be beyond doubt, so what? It doesn't change much does
it?

David Quinn: No, but it's the thin end of a wedge. Once a
person recognizes and accepts the utter infallibility of an
obvious truth like "experience is happening", he can
then go on to discern other truths which are just as
infallible and far more life-shattering.

For example, I can be absolutely certain that what I
experience in each moment is indeed what I experience in each
moment. One moment, I might perceive a tree, for instance; the
next moment, a car; the next, a cloud; the next, a thought inside
my head, and so on. In each moment, the object that I perceive is
indeed the object that I perceive. No amount of alien
distortion can undermine my certainty in regards to this. As with
the "experience is happening" truth, it is a kind of
knowledge which completely transcends those kinds of
possibilities.

So suddenly, with this single step in logic, we go from
possessing just one absolutely certain truth to possessing an
infinite number of them.

Next, we can lump the objects of our experience into the the
single category of "A". In other words, at each
moment we experience "A", where "A" stands
for any object of perception. As with the above, the
perception of "A" can never be called into question, no
matter how much my consciousness is being distorted by aliens.
Like "experience is happening", it is a transcendental
truth.

Next, we can break up A into A=A. This is simply a
conceptual process which fleshes out A into an expanded form,
which we can then use to establish the validity of logical
reasoning. The significance of this step is that it enables us to
ground the process of logical deduction with the same absolute
certainty as those other great truths above. It enables us to
discern that the process of logical deduction is beyond question
for the same reason that "experience is happening" is
beyond question. It is literally impossible to question these
things without falling into contradiction.

Finally, from this basis, we can logically deduce our way into
the Infinite.

Jason: Please show me exactly how you do this - step by step.

David Quinn: There are many round-about ways of doing this, but the
simplest and most direct way involves reasoning what Ultimate
Reality must be, and then, armed with this definition,
investigating exactly what in the universe conforms to
it.

That is to say:

Definition: Ultimate Reality is eternal, timeless, without
beginning and end, permanent, unchanging, everywhere and
everywhen, absolute in nature, and accountable for the existence
of all things. ("A")

Logical deduction: Only the totality of all there is conforms to
the definition of Ultimate Reality. ("A=A")

And so on.

Jason: Your definition just came out of your imagination
though, correct?

David Quinn: Yes. But I have good reason for imagining it in this
way.

Jason: Initially you said that you used reason to
show that that Ultimate Reality must exist. But all you did
was start with a definition of Ultimate Reality. So what you have
done is simply equate "definition" and "reasoning".
That leads to the problem that you could come up with any
definition of anything and claim that you reasoned that it
existed.

David Quinn: But that is not what is happening here. My definition
of Ultimate Reality possesses a logic which is unique to itself,
one that proves without doubt that it has an external referrant.
That is to say, the definition contains its own proof of Ultimate
Reality's existence. No other definition in the world
possesses this kind of internal logic.

Victor: I find it hard to believe in the "absoluteness"
of such truths as experience is happening. To see why,
think of what meaning, understanding, and truth really are. After
all when a person understands something, finds something
meaningful, all he is doing is forging contextual links between
the unfamiliar concept and the concepts that are already part of
his conceptual network, concepts he already "knows".
When something makes sense, or seems true, it means that the new
concept is consistent with all previous knowledge.

David Quinn: This ignores the basis upon which the assertion "experience
is happening" is absolutely true - namely, that it is
impossible to question it without falling into contradiction.
Since the very formulation of the question is itself an "experience",
it can never be called into question.

The assertion that "experience is happening" is really
just another way of asserting that "Reality is not
nothing whatsoever". Call me into account over this if you
must, but know that if you do, all you will be doing is proving
that you are in complete agreement with it.

Victor: All signals of consistency are just particular neurons
that fire up when we recognize something as true. An alien could
conceivably cause those neurons to misfire at times, and it could
introduce external chemo-electrical pulses at other times. Thus
whatever we might think we understand -- whatever we find
meaningful -- might make absolutely no sense to a "rational"
observer; our understanding might be totally plagued with
inconsistencies that we are unaware of due to the wicked alien
repressing the particular brain signals that would point to those
inconsistencies as such.

David Quinn: Your argument here is comprised of reasonings, despite
the fact that reasoning itself is the very thing that is being
called into question by you.

It doesn't matter what example you use as a hypothetical scenario
- space aliens, demons, random influences from nature, or
whatever - such a scenario will always be constructed out of
concepts, definitions and reasonings. So if it is indeed possible
to construct a valid hypothesis of this kind, as you believe you
have done, and to use it as a basis for arguing against the
possibility of attaining absolute knowledge, then you are
automatically giving your stamp of approval to the use of
concepts, definitions and reasonings in general - as valid tools
for arriving at valid conclusions.

So in other words, in the very act of constructing an objection,
you are tacitly affirming that it is possible to attain
absolute knowledge, after all.

Victor: The subtle point you seem to be missing is that I don't
question the methodology of logic and deduction as such, but
merely observing that it can be interfered with.

David Quinn: But even more subtlely, you are here using logic and
deduction to argue your point of view, which shows that you
indeed have a 100%, unshakable faith in their validity. Thus, the
conclusion you are trying to point me towards is wholly
unbelievable. Even you don't believe it. No one does.

GENIUS-L
at a glance:

Actually, it's interesting that
men are always asking what women want - it points out that their
only interest is in giving them whatever they ask for - or even
things they haven't asked for, but might like. David Hodges

Trading one's honesty, sanity, and
freedom for something as mediocre as material gain makes you --
well -- a whore. Being a whore in the sexual sense really means
little, as that context is rather irrelevant, but in this sense?
it is like giving up on the most important parts of one's life.
what rational reason could there be behind this sort of large-scale
enactment? answer: none, and any attempt at justification is
likely denial and rationalization. David Schnur

Largely, sex is meaningless. I am not that keen
to engage in meaningless activity. Marsha Faizi

I think you and those like you,
need lies to support your egos, to support the tangled web of
mutual ego stroking. I think you want and need people to lie to
you. It makes you and everyone else comfortable. It's much more
than just a trading game, it's a fitting-in game. It's to prove
your normality. It's bowing down and paying allegiance to the
herd on a daily basis. Jason

It's a rare person who can use
logic to override their emotions, but it does happen. But
it's even rarer to be able to use someone else's logic to
override one's emotions. Usually you will just have to wait
until a person is in a receptive frame of mind, when they've
started to question things on their own & are actively
looking for new ideas. Shardrol

Destruction of institutions gets us nowhere.
It makes more sense, if one is able, to exploit them for use, as
David Quinn and Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway do. One, then,
is a parasite on the system one loathes and demands its support
for one's own agenda. In this way, this forum is brought to
us courtesy of the Australian government. It yet sees
benefit in the support of the "eccentric" rather than
retaliation against it. The government of Australia
supports free thought through its welfare system. This is
barely possible in the United States. This is why one does
not see young men dressed as David Quinn is dressed in his
photographs on the Subscriber Profiles page. There is no
support here for such a thing. One either conforms or one
does not live. The only possibility for individual
expression ironically lies in the concept of communal living and
even that is suspect. Marsha Faizi

I think 'turn the other cheek' is detachment. When someone
has become secure in detachment (mastered himself), then he is in
position to give (to love). Bob
Willis

New!
- Subscriber Profile Pages

If you've
been wanting to put a face to the rhetoric, now you can!
Short biographies and photos of some of our regular and long term
contributors are now available. This is a work in progress so be
sure to visit every now and then to catch new pages as they are
added:

Disclaimer:
editorial opinions expressed in this publication are
those of its authors and do not, necessarily, reflect
the views of subscribers to Genius-L. Dialogues adapted from Genius-L and Genius
Forum have been edited for the purpose of brevity and clarity.
Certain spelling mistakes and typographical errors have been corrected
to preserve meaning.